This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've been thinking about why some people are terrified of Trump while others, like me, are more indifferent. I mostly tune out Trump news because I assume much of it involves scare tactics or misleading framing by his detractors. When my wife brings up concerns about his supposedly authoritarian actions, my general response is that if what he's doing is illegal, the governmental process will handle it - and if it's legal, then that's how the system is supposed to work. I have faith that our institutions have the checks and balances to deal with any presidential overreach appropriately.
This reminded me of a mirror situation during 2020-2021 with the BLM movement, where our positions were reversed. I was deeply concerned about social media mobs pressuring corporations, governments, and individuals to conform under threat of job loss, boycotts, and riots, while my wife thought these social pressures were justified and would naturally self-correct if they went too far. The key difference I see is that the government has built-in checks and balances designed to prevent abuse of power, while social movements and mob pressure operate without those same institutional restraints. It seems like we each trust different institutional mechanisms, but I can't help but think that formal governmental processes with built-in restraints are more reliable than grassroots social pressure that operates without those same safeguards. Furthermore, the media seems incentivized to amplify fear about Trump but not about grassroots social movements - Trump generates clicks and outrage regardless of which side you're on, while criticizing social movements risks alienating the platforms' own user base and advertiser-friendly demographics.
Eh fuck it.
Since there doesn’t seem to be any other people who are actually “terrified by Trump” answering (that is to say, leftists) aside from some light interjections by @Skibboleth, I suppose I ought to chime in and try to provide some actual responses, instead of just relying on admirable-but-inaccurate “steelmans” from more modal right-wingers who are at least trying to understand the screen the “other side” is watching
…Or worse, less-charitable right-wingers who neither understand the perspective of us Others nor want to understand, who instead just chalk it all up to pure TDS.
———
Honestly, though, you pretty much answer your own question in your opening paragraph;
My very first comment on this site -the whole reason I was inspired to create this account and bother screaming into the void here to begin with- has to do with the fact that, y’know, a lot of us TDS-rotted leftoids actually believe in the ‘scare tactics’ and ‘misinformation’ that the conventional wisdom around here holds to be mere anti-Trump propaganda.
Believe it or not, a lot of the time people actually do believe in what they say they do.
Trump is openly, proudly purging the government of anyone willing and able to disagree with him. I do not share your optimistic read on the situation. In other words,
Well I don’t.
The fact that the administration has, in the past few months, been hard at work trying to bypass, eliminate, and ignore those built-in restraints gives me a very different read on the situation.
However, it’s the fact that the Republican half of the government (and at least a third of the population) is either doing nothing to stop it, or even actively cheer it on, that really causes me to despair over the situation.
Well, I can say I've paid about as much attention to Trump as I have to every other president, including Biden - which is not much. But it's taken significantly more effort to afford Trump the same level of indifference as I have for Biden and other presidents, and that's been true since 2015. I see that as indicative that information I shouldn't trust is being pushed my way, which reinforces my tendency to tune it out.
Your response hasn't given any consideration to the mirror image aspect of my original post. I encourage you to try to put aside your preconceptions and consider how the other side might have felt looking at the BLM situation of 2020-2021, and the power that mob mentality held at the time. Can you sympathize with someone else's fear of the lack of checks on that power, the same way you worry that the checks and balances in government won't be enough to stop Trump? Can you see how someone on the other side would have had similar reservations about those in power at the time doing nothing to curb that power, and to the contrary actually cheering it on?
I'm not asking you to agree that those concerns were valid or that the situations are equivalent - I'm asking whether you can see the structural similarity in how both sides experience fear when they perceive threats from power sources they believe lack adequate restraints. If you can only acknowledge that the other side had feelings while maintaining that your fears are categorically different or more legitimate, then you're missing the point about how these dynamics work. Your response kind of proves the point about us trusting different institutional mechanisms without engaging with it.
I’m well aware that the ‘other side’ views the current situation as being a symmetrical response to BLM, the COVID lockdowns, and generally views the Trump Administration’s lawlessness as being a counter-defection preceded by and justified by the left defecting ‘first’.
However, I simply reject that framing, and I very much do not see these situations as being similarly symmetrical to begin with. So while you’re correct to say that
I do not think any of that really matters.
I’m sufficiently burnt out on people trying to play the ‘both sides’ card that I don’t really care to entertain those kinds of arguments anymore, even if they are simply being posed from a pure ‘devils advocate’ position. Both sides are not the same.
But alas, I am a partisan, so I would say that, wouldn’t I.
Yet.
I’m pessimistic; there’s still 3+ years to go, and I personally expect it to last much longer than that.
Alright, lay your cards on the table. How? Do you actually expect an 83-years-old Donald Trump to perform a coup and cancel the elections and declare himself dictator for life?
Alright, since you seem to be asking in earnest, I’ll attempt to give you my earnest expectations (assuming this damn phone doesn’t eat my reply halfway through and I promptly give up trying to reply out of frustration):
Bottom line is, I am 99.99%+ sure that Trump will not leave the office of the Presidency except in either a coffin or a body bag unless he is absolutely, 110% certain that, for the rest of however many years he still has left to live, there will never be a leftist administration in power capable of prosecuting him for his countless misdeeds committed during (and almost certainly after) his time in office.
That would require either (a) Trump himself to stay in office until he drops dead, or (b) he feels that he can safely hand off the Presidency to a hand-picked successor who has both the personal loyalty AND unbreakable political backing to continue protecting Trump from ALL possible criminal investigations, whether state or federal, for the next 4-20 years, no matter how the political winds may blow in the future.
Even if we assume such a capable successor exists, I’d still estimate at least 55/45 odds in favor of (a) rather than (b), on the grounds that Trump is a vain, entitled person uninclined to give up power unless he absolutely has to… and also that he has specifically floated the idea of serving at least a third term (if not more) multiple times- and that, more generally, Trump seems to view the Constitution as just a piece of parchment that exists as an inconvenient speedbump for his desires, 22nd Amendment included.
Given the fact that Trump can’t be certain such a successor will exist (and that, in the face of possible political blowback driven by the likely-disastrous long-term outcomes of his boneheaded policies, such a successor would be able to guarantee his immunity), I expect the odds of scenario (a) versus (b) to be higher than 55/45, especially if the midterms and the end period of his current term start to cause visible cracks in his base.
Thus, I’m expecting probably ~80% odds that Trump will attempt to stay in office by any means necessary, unless he has to cede power.
The most likely scenario I see playing out is that, after trying to ‘rig’ the midterms via redistricting, every conceivable procedural trick in the book, and (especially in the unlikely scenario that the midterms looks to be a blowout loss for the GOP), claiming massive election fraud and ordering recounts until a more acceptable outcome is reached, Trump will have one of his more shameless toadies in Congress (looking especially at Andy Ogles, who’s already happily floating this) propose some kind of legislation to allow Trump specifically to serve additional terms. If the GOP manages to retain any kind of majority, I expect that legislation to get put to a vote, and ultimately pass along party lines despite initial token unease from more ‘moderate’ Republicans. SCOTUS will either rule in favor of the legislation once it’s inevitably challenged, or more likely just refuse to hear any challenges to it while striking down attempts to void the legislation, or some other similar method to punt the decision. Trump will promptly run for a third term, and stands a good chance to win due to a combination of polarization and using the federal government to try and secure his odds of victory.
If the above legislative gambit proves unsuccessful, I expect Trump to instead lean on the conservative SCOTUS majority to just find some excuse to suddenly decide that the 22nd Amendment has actually been unconstitutional all along- at which point, he’ll run again, and refer back to my previous remarks about his odds of winning.
If that doesn’t work, I expect him to instead claim that since the 2020 election was “stolen” from him, that he deserves a third term as compensation.
If that doesn’t work, I expect him to either run again, damn what the 22nd says, using some flimsy, nonsensical legal argument. This includes hairbrained schemes like having Vance run for President with Trump as VP, and then making him immediately cede the office.
If Trump tries the above strategies and none of them work and he can’t run again (or if he is able to run again but loses), I am completely, 100% certain he will then immediately call fraud, and then most likely (80%+ odds) that he’ll do everything possible to avoid having to cede power unless he’s compelled to do…
…And yes, if all other alternatives fail, include him doing (another, less half-assed this time) coup, and either unofficially or officially declaring himself President for the rest of his life, if he thinks he can get away with it.
Cards laid, I suppose.
I'm curious what you'd be willing to bet on the condition that such a bill never makes it to the House and Senate floor for a final vote, conditional on Trump surviving (and not being comatose, Biden-esque, yada) to January 2029? Because at 80% confidence... well, I won't call it free money, but I'd be willing to bet at greater odds the opposite direction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wish I had your optimism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link